Letter: Food for thought

Charlie Davison's feature on the psychology underlying acceptance or rejection of health advice ('Eggs and the sceptical eater', 11 March) is well argued. However, he did not touch on two important aspects of the way in which healthy diets are presented.

First, there is the problem of describing the average diet. For example, 'Britons, on average, should reduce their sugar consumption by half.' To interpret this advice, we need to assess our own diet in relation to the 'average'. A group of teenagers who regularly buy soft drinks and sweets will have a different concept of average sugar consumption from people who frequent whole-food restaurants. In addition, many are aware only of the sugar they add to tea or coffee, and forget about the biscuits, cakes and so on.

On the other hand, specific advice can be meaningless. For example, 'No more than a third of our energy should be ...

To continue reading this article, subscribe to receive access to all of newscientist.com, including 20 years of archive content.

To continue reading this article, log in or subscribe to New Scientist